Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 506 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Prem Bai

2001-07-16

R.B.DIXIT, S.P.SRIVASTAVA

body2001
Judgment ( 1. ) HEARD the learned Govt. Advocate for the appellant as well as the learned counsel representing the contesting respondent. ( 2. ) THE facts as brought on record indicate that the contesting respondent-Smt. Prema Bai had initiated the proceedings under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, challenging her termination from service with effect from 14-2-1982 whereupon on a reference having been made by the State Government, the Labour Court vide its award dated 3-10-91 had declared her termination to be illegal and issue a direction for her reinstatement in service providing further that so far as backwage was concerned, she would be entitled to 50% of the wages only. ( 3. ) THE workman respondent initiated proceedings under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 registered as Case No. 15/92 for recovering the backwages as directed by the Labour Court. She had reported for duties on 27-1-1992 but she was not reinstated in service, there, she initiated another proceeding under Section 33-C (2) as Case No. 16/93 praying for recovery of the amount of the wages from the date of her reporting for joining till 31-10-1993 quantifying the amount payable to her stood withheld at Rs. 23,250/ -. Both the cases are still pending before the concerned Labour Court as stated by the learned counsel for the contesting respondent which fact is not disputed, by the counsel for the petitioner. ( 4. ) THE writ petition giving rise to this appeal had been filed impleading the State of Madhya Pradesh only as the respondent for a direction in the nature of mandamus against it requiring it to comply with the award of the Labour Court. A learned Single Judge of this Court disposed of the aforesaid writ petition vide the impugned judgment and order dated 26-4-95. The learned Single Judge was of the view that the forum of Article 226 of the Constitution chosen by the workman for the redressal of her grievance was not an appropriate forum. However, taking note of the fact that the award had been made in the year 1991, the learned Single Judge found it to be just and proper to direct the respondent-State to take notice of the award and implement the same within a period of two months. ( 5. However, taking note of the fact that the award had been made in the year 1991, the learned Single Judge found it to be just and proper to direct the respondent-State to take notice of the award and implement the same within a period of two months. ( 5. ) FEELING aggrieved the State has now come up in Letters Patent Appeal seeking it reversal of the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. ( 6. ) THE learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously urged that once the learned Single Judge had come to the conclusion that Article 226 of the Constitution was not the appropriate forum chosen by the petitioner so far as the redressal of her grievance was concerned, there could be no justification for issuing any direction as in the nature of impugned directions issued by the learned Single Judge. ( 7. ) IT may be noticed at this stage that at the time of admission of the appeal, in the order dated 24-2-96 passed in this appeal, notice has been issued to the respondent, calling upon her to show cause as to why, in view of the pendency of the proceedings under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the order of the learned Single Judge, be not modified. ( 8. ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent has urged that in any view of the matter, the ultimate responsibility for the payment of not only the back-wages but the wages which would have become admissible to the workman subsequent to her reinstatement rested on the State Government which had been impleaded as the second party in the proceedings under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act initiated by her in the Labour Court which are still pending. Although the State Government itself had made the reference which had been decided against it by the Labour Court, the directions issued by the Labour Court were not being complied with by the State Government, even though the aforesaid directions had been allowed to attain finality. Although the State Government itself had made the reference which had been decided against it by the Labour Court, the directions issued by the Labour Court were not being complied with by the State Government, even though the aforesaid directions had been allowed to attain finality. It is urged that being a party to the proceedings before the Labour Court giving rise to the writ petition, the State Government as a model employer ought to have complied with the directions issued by the Labour Court without forcing or compelling the aggrieved workman concerned to take recourse to the proceedings under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act for recovery of the amount of her wages the payment whereof stood withheld by the Stale Government itself in flagrant disregard of the directions issued by the Labour Court. The contention is that in the circumstances of the case, once the learned Single Judge had issued the impugned directions observing clearly that doing so, would be just and proper, no case can be said to have been made out for interference in the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge. ( 9. ) WE have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions made by the counsel for the parties. ( 10. ) IT is true that in the presence of a speedy, efficacious statutory alternative remedy the forum of Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the redressal of the grievances which could be effectively get redressed by approaching the alternative forum; can not be held to be appropriate and generally this Court ought to decline any interference on the availability of such an alternative statutory remedy. However, the mere existence of the alternative remedy cannot be absolute bar. It all depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. There may be exceptional circumstances where in the fitness of the things the discretion envisaged under Article 226 of the Constitution may still be exercised to advance the cause of justice or prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice. ( 11. ) IN the present case what we find is that the respondent-workman having obtained an order in her favour under the proceedings for the redressal of her grievance from the Industrial Court long back in the year 1991 but is not able to get the fruits of the award in his favour on account of no fault on her part. ) IN the present case what we find is that the respondent-workman having obtained an order in her favour under the proceedings for the redressal of her grievance from the Industrial Court long back in the year 1991 but is not able to get the fruits of the award in his favour on account of no fault on her part. Neither the backwages have been paid to her as ordered, nor she has been reinstated as directed. The State government which was a party to the proceedings had allowed the order of the Industrial Court to attain the finality as indicated hereinabove. There could be no justification for not clearing of the arrears and complying with the award of the Labour Court. ( 12. ) HOWEVER, since the proceedings under Section 33-C (2) had already been initiated and are pending before the Labour Court, we think it proper to direct the concerned Labour Court to proceed to finally decide the aforesaid cases on merits within a period not later than two months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order before the concerned authority. ( 13. ) THE learned Government Advocate representing the appellant has stated that the appellant shall fully co-operate and no unnecessary adjournment will be sought for. ( 14. ) THIS appeal is disposed of finally with the directions and observations made hereinbefore.